- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:55:34 -0700
- To: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG telecon, 19 August 2004, 1800 UTC Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Aug/0072.html IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2004/08/19-swbp-irc New Action Summary: ACTION: Ralph to contact Bernard regarding Topic Maps TF ACTION: Ralph find e-mailed f2f responses and impersonate them into the straw poll ACTION: David to ask on the mailing list whether there is an interest to generate a formal response to DanC note Continued Actions: ACTION: Alan to respond to guus' document on qualified cardinality constraints ACTION: Ralph do an analysis of which WG participants have been able to attend at which meeting time. ACTION: Jeremy to review XSD FNO and SCD documents. ACTION: Jeremy to add XSD FNO and SCD documents to TF reference list. ACTION: Jeremy to check semantics on DAWG use of XSD in abstract query model. Chair: David Wood Scribe: Natasha Noy 1. ADMINISTRIVIA Role call: Present: David Wood, Ralph, Andreas Harth, Tom Baker, Tom Adams, Mike Uschold, Gary Ng, Alistair Miles, Natasha Noy, Deb McGuinness Regrets: Brian, Alan, DanBri, Libby, Jos, Guus, Evan, Steve Pepper Agenda amendments: None proposed. PROPOSED: To accept minutes of 5 August. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Aug/0057.html RESOLVED. PROPOSED: Next telecon for 2 September 1430 UTC, to last 60 minutes RESOLVED. NOTE the later time for the telecon due to the conflict with the telecon for WG chairs F2F Location: Straw poll at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/2ndf2f/ Open until August 25. 2. ACTION ITEM REVIEW ACTION ralph & guus to set up straw poll as web form for location of next done (http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35495/2ndf2f/) ACTION TomA to add links from last telecon to tutorials page done, but have not committed changes yet ACTION Alan to respond to guus' document on qualified cardinality constraints continued ACTION TomA get MINDLAB to write description of urchin for APDTF weblog done ACTION Ralph to link ADTF blog from WG page done (ESW weblog linked at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/#Tasks under ATDF) ACTION Ralph do an analysis of which WG participants have been able to attend at which meeting time. continued ACTION Jeremy to review XSD FNO and SCD documents. continued ACTION Jeremy to add XSD FNO and SCD documents to TF reference list. continued ACTION Jeremy to check semantics on DAWG use of XSD in abstract query model. continued 3. TF Updates 3.1 OEP Continuing discussion on OEP notes on the mailing list 3.2 PORT Link with update posted by Alistair 3.3 WordNet no one from the TF present 3.4 XML Schema datatypes no updates (no one from the TF present) 3.5 Vocabulary management (TomB) Tom will post an updated draft of the TF description The update will be in the form of a straw poll of TF members to determine how likely the members are to agree on the scope; to determine which items are in scope or out of scope. Tom will post it next week with the goal to get it rolling by the end of the month 3.6 HTML (Ben): TomA was on the telecon http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Aug/0075.html The telecon minutes were posted to the list. David thinks it's an important TF and would like to encourage participation. There is a poll on the next TF meeting (proposed date: September 7th) there are no responses yet. There is enough time to get more participation Ralph and Ben had a conversation with Tomaso on teh formality of the WG communication Ralph: We would like to see them have a more formal reference to this TF in their charter David: Ben has done as much as he could do to get the TF started, arranging a telecon, etc. it is in our hands to respond to his email The XHTML TF will conduct its discussions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/ 3.7 ADTF no one is here from the TF 3.8 Tutorial page (TomA) needs to commit the updates 4 AOB 4.1 TF on Topic Maps and RDF Ralph: Ontopia (http://www.ontopia.net/) has recently joined W3C. They are one of several commercial companies heavily involved in topic maps. They joined W3C with the hope that this WG will be interested in discussing the relationship between TM and SW Some contributions from TM folks on public-esw-thes@w3.org Steve Pepper from Ontopia was very keen on getting the TF that will look at interoperability of TMs and RDF started Bernard has written papers on this topic It would be good GRDDL people involved -- they have relevant technology (http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/ Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL)) ACTION: Ralph to contact Bernard regarding Topic Maps TF 4.2 Response to the DAWG request http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Aug/0061.html Ralph: do we want to generate a WG response? David would like to see some discussion on the mailing list (if there is no siginificant discusccion, perhaps there is not much interest?) Ralph: we can do the TF model, asking for people who can contribute some time to this over the next couple of weeks ACTION: David to ask on the mailing list whether there is an interest to generate a formal response to DanC note 4.3 Units and measures Deb: there was a proposal to do a note on units and measures Natasha thinks that Guus has signed up for that (but not entirely sure) Deb is willing to contribute but warns that it could be a very large amount of work to do it well units and measures is a specific request from the Device Independence Working Group Deb: my interpretation of the original request is to do a survey of existing ontologies (and that is already a very large task) developing an ontology is a much bigger task. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Jul/0108.html Re: DIWG Requests Guidance on Ontologies for Units [DWood 2004-07-23] Ralph: Postulating that there is at least one ontology of units, is it clear how one would write RDF instance data using that ontology Deb: yes, should be reasonably clear David: not so sure that it would be so easy Deb: there are two different issues: (1) how much do you need to model? and (2) if someone already has a representation, is it straightforard how to represent this in OWL Natasha: Perhaps we can have a note that avoids the issue of what a good ontology for units and measures is, postulating some simple one ("suppose that's what you have") and presenting how you would use it in OWL/RDF Natasha, Deb: we're happy to help with a note on how to use an ontology of units with RDF/OWL but we don't have time to lead this David encourages Deb to raise this issue on the mailing list again to see if we can get an IEO note on representing units
Received on Friday, 20 August 2004 00:55:34 UTC